Search and Seizure Considerations in University-Owned Housing: Implications for Practice

Journal of College Student Development, May/Jun 1998 by Parrish, Bradley W, Dickman, Marcia M, Fern, Michael Scott

The majority of these cases, however, have supported the position that universities have the authority to conduct searches of student rooms based upon provisions contained within a housing contract, provided that the searches could be shown to further an educational mission and that these searches would not come into conflict with the Fourth Amendment.

Administrative Versus Governmental Searches

By virtue of their responsibility to maintain an educational atmosphere, college and university officials have been allowed to conduct searches under a more relaxed standard of due process. Courts have found that the "standard of 'reasonable cause to believe' to justify a search by college administrators . . . is lower than the constitutionally protected criminal law standard of `probable cause' . . . because of the special necessities of the student-college relationship" (Moore, 1968, p. 730). The case of Piazzola v. Watkins (1970) established that

the standard of "reasonable cause to believe" laid down by this court in Moore as a justification for a search by college officials that resulted in school disciplinary proceedings cannot be the justification for a search by a police officer for the sole purpose of gathering evidence for criminal prosecutions. (pp. 626-627)

In determining whether a search by college officials is administrative (resulting in school disciplinary proceedings) or governmental (resulting in criminal prosecution), the courts have largely based their decisions upon the extent of the intrusion created by the search. For example, the search in the Smyth (1978) case was not an administrative search because as the university officials were not conducting a "generalized or routine inspection for violations of housing, health, or other regulatory code[s]" (Smyth, p. 786) but were instead looking for evidence of criminal activity. The nature of the intervention was such that it superseded the university's authority to conduct the search. The higher standard of probable cause was applied, and the search was therefore ruled unreasonable. In the Morale (1976) decision, because the university was a state institution and both staff members were compensated by the university for their services, the staff members were found to be governmental agents, and, therefore, fully bound by the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. As stated earlier, however, this same court also ruled that "a check or search of a student's dormitory room is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless [the school] can show that the search furthers its functioning as an educational institution" (p. 998). Therefore, even though students may have the same right of privacy that other adults enjoy in their homes, and even though university officials may be seen as governmental agents, their searches (including drug searches) may still be immune from Fourth Amendment scrutiny if they can be shown to further the educational mission of the institution. However, college and university officials generally are assumed to be private citizens for Fourth Amendment purposes, and they will be held accountable to the lower standard of "reasonable cause to believe."